JAD_333

I appreciate your detailed reply and your respect for our troops.

I do not disagree with you that conditions on the ground are as you describe them. I am very sympathetic to the Iraqis who are suffering on account of the insurgency. In a sense, you are right: my comments are irrelevent to conditions on the ground. But please understand that I left them out on purpose.

You have cited the conditions on the ground as the reason why the US made a mistake inavding Iraq and why it should now leave. In that context, those conditions are irrelvent to a geopolitical point of view, which I was taking. But I don't want to go into the strategic reasons why the US went into Iraq at this late hour. Suffice to say it was not because of WMD.

The question is whether the larger strategic purpose overrides consideration of conditions on the ground. I think it does, which is why it seemed to you that I was ignoring them in my post. As an ordinary individual I am very aware of them and sick to my heart at the suffering in Iraq.

However, when considering a country's vital interests, we should not be swayed by conditions on the ground. It sounds cruel but on such decisions nations rise and fall. Thus, humanitarian considerations are secondary to the overarching objective. They become important on the tactical level, but not before.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that going into Iraq was the right thing to do, or that hanging on is right. I am saying that as a matter of principle, if the US wants to prevail in its strategic purpose, that is, the purpose for its entering Iraq, then it must commit fully to it. The alternative is to depart orderly.

A couple of final points: Life under Saddam was not better than the life the Iraqis could now have if the insurgency and AQ had not made reconstruction nearly impossible. Also, it's doubtful the occupation would have upset the Iraqis much had the insurgency not come along. The oppressive atmosphere there is not the fault of the occupation, but the effects of trying to achieve security. The Iraqis were headed to democratic government and showed by their voting turnout that they wanted it wholeheartedly. If they are disappointed in it now, who is to blame?

Thanks for your reply.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Ray

Nabi.

Iraq is a complex issue.

At the outset, while the US has gone about in a most weird gung ho manner, they cannot be faulted in what they have done since it was essential from their strategic perception, in the same way the Islamic terrorists are hard at it to prove their point!

I will confess that both the invasion of Iraq or the actions of Islamic terrorist worldwide does not warm the co_ckles of my heart!
‘
As far as the US is concerned, true to form, having used Saddam to suit their purpose found it prudent to dump him. On another thread (Australians are in Iraq for Oil, I think) I have appended a link on the issue of the Iraq – Iran War and why it happened! The bottomline there was OIL and the Shia Sunni rivalry wherein they were willing pawns. Now, if you Moslems can be manipulated, why blame anyone? Basically, you all are selfish and craving for power and supremacy amongst the Shia Sunni divide! So, let us not blame the US or anyone else. YOU are to blame and be courageous enough to realise and accept it so. If you look at the Islamic world, it is full of inter sectarian ‘wars’. So, you’re at fault. Stop, blaming others!

The US is in Iraq, not only for Oil, but greater strategic reasons. I have amplified on it in many a thread and so I will not do so here.

Anyone who understands Islam will realise that Saddam cannot be a friend of AQ., notwithstanding the publicity to that effect in the western media. Unfortunately, it serves the western purpose to tar Saddam as a villain (since his value for western interest had become zero, having assisted him to be a top villain).

Saddam has gone. None shed a tear and there is no requirement either. But where has it left the US? Flapping in the wind of the Sunni – Shia divide! They are supporting the Shias and at the same time getting ballistic with the Shia mentors – Iran! Don’t blame the US, they are clueless about Islam. Their experts are those who are His Master's Voice! Having you seen the logo of HMV. It is a dog sitting next to the horn of an old type of gramophone!

Surges will not help and the drawdown will be more disastrous, given the heritage bestowed by the British wherein incongruity of borders with the clans was ideal for further intervention as it is seen everywhere the British have ruled .

It is time, to hand over to some international agency which is acceptable to all concerned if some peace is desired (indeed if it is possible after all this unrivalled mess up). But then, it may not be to western interests.

So, status quo will prevail!

Also be bold enough to admit that you Moslems asked for it!

Don't cry over spilt milk!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

nabilfannoush

'we moslems'?

what does being moslem or whatever have to do with anything? and who said anything about me being a muslim anyway? I am speaking as a human being, and anyway this generalization of yours is unwarranted. You cannot include someone for attrocities done by people claiming to be muslims just because he/she are muslims. Or are we going back to medeival times where people are being persecuted on their faith just in case? The US after it cannot find WMDs in Iraq(oops), 'changed' their reasons to fighting these evils and ethnic segregation, and now I'm hearing THIS? even if we were to follow this reasoning of yours, what about the Iraqi christians? they're not muslim, or should we blame them for being Iraqis?

The Iraq-Iran war happened because Saddam Hussien had expansion policies, the same reason he invaded Kuwait later. He started it. End of story.

'don't blame the US because they don't understand Islam'? Are you kidding?? if they don't understand then it IS their fault for going in with their guns without understanding. Not understanding is a shamefully poor excuse for what is going on there now. If you have a criminal on trial, 'not understanding' what he did was wrong does not make him innocent. Even the UN which frequently rubber-stamp US policy even when it is clearly a mistake refused to support the US in this disaster.

As for what our friend said above about 'life was not better for iraqis under saddam', that's an uninformed statement and oh yes it was, and this a very hard thing for me to say because I detested the creep. HE has never been to Iraq. I was in Iraq before and after. Back then they at least had enough to eat, now they don't. they had electricity and running water, now they dont. Children then can walk to school with relative saftey, now everytime someone leaves home it's a high risk never to be seen again. These people can't be bothered with these American globalization values of voting or whatever when they have to worry about feeding their children and being indiscriminently killed with all factions-americans included-considering them nothing more than collateral damage. And what's this about having to accept this situation as 'inevitable'? NOW it's inevitable because the US sent in their forces without this 'understanding' of yours. AND this is necessary for the interest of the US??? Last time I checked, the US doesn't own the planet. WWII came about because Hitler thought that germans had the right and in their 'interest' to invade other countries and take their resources and force to live under Nazi or pro-Nazi regimes and acted on it this megalomanic dillusion, and now the Americans are in Iraq to 'protect american interests', 'enforce democracy' and for the 'good of the Iraqis'?? are we going to go through this charade every time some schmuck and his gung ho generals have resources at their disposal to invade and bring extra misery on people far away in the name of 'interests' or an abstract form of political concept??? Once the value of human life has gone so low as to be worth wasting in such horrific numbers on these things for individuals then these individuals are barbarians, and it makes no difference wether they are religious radicals or american leaders or whatever, assuming that is the 'reason'.

So much for the 'principles' this sorry affair is based on. Now for practicality:
I have NEVER said the US forces should leave, at least right away. THey made the mistake. Too bad. If they leave now en masse, there will be a vacuum that will be filled by these warring factions, including AQ who never would have been on Iraqi soil if it hadn't been for the Americans in the first place, they'll just turn on each other and the situation will get even worse, a full scale civil war. That's why I said that when the first soldier set foot on Iraq it was already too late. What I DID say is that sending in more troops is a mistake, it would make no difference and serve no purpose other than getting more lives unnecessarily lost. I have already stated the reasons for this above and other military institutions and analysts see this, including americans. How many Vietnams, N.Irelands, Afghanistans and Gulf wars will it take for the White House to understand that sending in more guns to a country already ripped apart by civil strife and destitution is of no practical military use, dammit??

You are correct that an international role by a body acknowledged by Iraq and the rest of us is the only way to go. I have said as much before and the US need to integrate itself in this effort, because Iraq acknowledges that it is part of the world community and the UN and needs to comply by the rules and conventions it is signatory to which protect the sanctity of human life and rights to safety and security and to back them with force WHEN NECESSARY. Otherwise everybody should just stay home and shut up. Policing the world is a job for the world altogether, not for individual countries to go vigilante-like forcing things just because they have the weapons to do it.

The rest that is new is just a repeat of previous posts worded differenly. I've already answered them, and I have nothing to add.

Ray

Nice post.

I am a bit preoccupied, but your post does invite an answer.

Since it cannot be cursory, I will try to find time to reply.

Till then.....

Shek

JAD,

Questioning strategy is the duty of the citizenry, as civilians are in charge of strategy (i.e., the CINC), and it is the voters who elect the CINC into office.

However, I find that much of the debate is not rational, but instead, emotional. The following blog post is interesting about the potential moral hazard problem of the all volunteer force, but as an econ 101 type blog that is using the issue to illustrate moral hazard, it doesn't delve into flip side, either. What reason do many cite as the issue with OIF? Too many American soldiers dying. While their sentiments are to be commended as American citizens, this is not a rational approach. Instead, it should be a calculation of costs and benefits, not just costs.

Aplia Econ Blog: News for Economics Students

So, as a military professional, I want my elected leaders to make rational decisions detached from emotion. I would not have it otherwise.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

JAD_333

Our ideas of being 'better off' are clearly different. You see having food, electricity, running water, and relative security as better than having rights, such as equal protection under the law; ability to criticize government without threat of summary execution; freedom of speech and so on as better. I don't.

But I don't think arguing over it gets us any closer to understanding why the US felt it necessary to take out Saddam. Obviously, we viewed his oppressive totalitarian government as an impediment to our objectives in the region or, to put it more abstractly, we viewed him as a threat to one of our vital interests.

Now if you want to argue that the US did not handle itself well in Iraq; did not fully understand the Iraqi mind, the dynamics between Shite, Sunni and Kurd; or was unprepared for an insurgency, then we can agree. But I would not agree that these shortcomings make a case for abondonning the original objective. On the contrary, they make a case that the US should get smarter, fight better, change tactics, whatever... Let's be clear about one thing: the insurgency is the main impediment to security in Iraq. No one can convince me--and I would be surprised if you could--that the killing of innocent Iraqis in car bomb attacks is a pure reaction to US occupation. Let's be honest: a power struggle is underway between Iraqi religious factions and it will not end with our departure.

Of course, they don't care about our global interests. They are Iraqi.

And as for US collateral damage, it pales by comparison to what the insurgents inflict. Are the insurgents so impatient for the US to leave that they must kill their own people? Perhaps that is their stated justification, but you know as well as I do that the massive power shift from Sunni to Shite brought on by the US toppling of Saddam is the problem. It's going to play itself out violently whether we are there or not. In fact, our being there is getting in the way. That's why they want us to leave. But even you say we shouldn't leave all at once. What will happen if we do?


I am not sure what you're getting at here, but yes, the conditions on the ground must be accepted and dealt with when executing a strategic objective. During WWII the US deemed it necessary to clear the Japanese from some islands in the Pacific in order to set up forward air bases. When they landed on islands like Iwo Jima they were surprised at how well dug in and tenacious the Japanese were and never expected such high casualties, but they went ahead. Why? Because the value of the objective overrode the deadly conditions on the ground.

Finally, the US does not claim to own the planet, but by the same token the US is not going to lay down and let people like Saddam and Bin Laden threaten its interests without taking action.

That Hitler analogy won't fly and it is somewhat offensive. We are not on some Wagnarian quest for Liebenstrum. We are in Iraq for one reason and it's not to create the 51st state. Nor are we there solely for the good of the Iraqi people, but we believe our interests will be served by helping them construct a secure, modern state governed by democratically elected leaders. What's wrong with that?

JAD_333

Shek:

I see Friedman's rationale is nearly the same as that articulated in the book--excellent, by the way; thank you. It seems to me that something is lost in always deciding issues from the standpoint of economics. The all volunteer army appears to work well, but when the number of troops comes up short to carry out all our missions, we find ourselves in this odd juxtaposition of part of us at war and part of us continuing to enjoy the good life. Perhaps that is the natural result of an all volunteer military. My 18 year old son won't even consider joining the reserves because, as he told me, he doesn't have to. He thinks people only defend the country if they want to. I don't fault him for his attitude.

Shek

JAD,

Glad that you liked the book.

As far as the AVF goes, the issue is beyond that of the AVF. As a point of departure, strategy encompasses just the military. Grand strategy encompasses DIME (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic) or MIDLIFE (Military, Informational, Diplomatic, Legal, Intelligence, Financial, and Economic), depending on which acronym you want to use. In any case, the current administration has not developed an integrated grand strategy IMO, and instead, has relied mostly on the military. In choosing to do so, the burden of the war has fallen squarely on the military, while the rest of the machinations of government has for the most part been left out of the fight (with the exceptions of parts of State and some intel agencies), as have the American people.

As recently as January, when asked about what the American people have had to sacrifice, the best answer that President Bush could come up with was peace of mind. Except for some extremely veiled calls for service, the administration has not asked for increased enlistment, and it was only this past fall that it finally reversed itself on avoiding increasing the size of the military. I suspect that if the President had called for service post-9/11, or even in the summer/fall of 2003 when it became clear that Iraq wasn't going to be an in and out gig, that we could have increased the active end-strength of the Army by several hundred thousand.

Bottomline, the inspiration and leadership for mobilizing the country needs to come from the executive office. The bully pulpit wasn't used, and that is where I think much of the apathy towards the war lays. If you're told to go out shopping and living like normal, then that's what you're going to do.

JAD_333

Not finished yet. Like the format; perfect for someone who falls asleep reading technical stuff.

I've lost touch with all the acronyms since leaving DoD. Not sure it would make any difference in a layman's discussion. But thanks for the refresher course.


I doubt the current adminstration had to do more than assess whether our vital interests were at stake in the ME. The grand strategy, to use your term, already existed. The decision to send the military in must have been very difficult for Bush to make from the standpoint of loss of life and commitment of resources.

I believe the consultative process that really made a difference is ultra top secret. We've only heard about the decision to pin it on WMD and the debate on force structure. We haven't heard Rice laying out the geopolitical picture to Bush in private with all the ramification of this and that. We haven't heard the tacit encouragement of our ME allies.

Doesn't the military assume the greater share of the burden once the decision is made to go in? How is Iraq any different in that respect to any other military action?


IProbably right.

Too much bully pulpit could spook Congress. Like in, how far is this thing going to go. But the reason it may not have been used is that Rumsfeld was too **** sure of what he was at.

nabilfannoush

Nothing's wrong with that, except for the horrendous number of people that's getting killed, exodused and subjected to ethnic genocide . Since we've already established that the 'good of the Iraqi people' here is virtually nil, we can see this is only for the presumed 'interest' by some ambitious careerists in Washington who have no respect for the sanctity of other people's lives as long as it is done on someone else's turf. And, no, there's no room for worrying about voting, government representation , democracyand other noble-sounding quests if you do not even have the basic amenities of life and survival.What's the point?
I'm glad you find the Hitler analogy offensive, because that is exactly my point: You cannot use your ideals or 'interests'-however noble they seem to you-on other people. If I was a warlord and decided that my political or religious or system was better than yours and that 'for your own good' and 'my interest in the area' and that I should invade the US and stop you 'for the greater good' regardless of how many civilians I manage to get killed on the way you would probably be singing a different tune, and rightfully so, and please don't tell me that your case is 'different' because it's 'better'; it is not a call for the US or any one nation to make on its own just because it's better armed. If you do not believe that the US owns the planet, then you should believe that the US have no right to police the world according to the Agenda and say-so of whoever happens to be in the oval office of the time, otherwise what are the UN, NATO, the Hague Tribunal and other acknowledged world administration bodies for?
That doesn't affect the US troops in any way in my mind. I do not hold them responsible for bad decisions made by criminally uninformed hacks in washington, and of course their folks back home like you should support them. It's awful the way that good loyal americans are being sent to kill and die for the most awful reasons. Americans are starting to see it and the damnfool administration causing it is less popular than ever. The merits I have discusses already above and there's no point repeating myself.

Regardless of all that: IT-IS-NOT-WORKING

nabilfannoush

Thanks Ray. you're all right. At least you're open to discussion and accept different points of view and seem to understand that they exist.

Touche on the 'I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to' bit. You're right. Life's too short to spend on unreasonably stubborn people.

catch ya later

Ray

Your view is interesting because it gives an insight of what is the feeling 'on the other side of the hill'. Such inputs, to my mind, does help in clearing the kinks in one's own thoughts.

It is true that many are being killed and many are leaving Iraq, which was their home because of the utter chaotic conditions that is prevailing in Iraq.

But is it genocide?

If you feel it is genocide, then so be it. But, I am sure you will agree that it is NOT the US which is perpetuating the genocide. The mindless killing is an All Moslem affair, where the Sunnis are killing the Shias and the Shias are killing the Sunnis. Logically, it is the Iraqis themselves who are "genociding" themselves! If one looks at it impartially, it is the US, which is trying to stop it and not getting the act right.

One could say that it was the US invasion that created the atmosphere for this 'genocide', though I prefer to use the word 'fratricide'. And anyway, if the US was not there, Saddam would be at it as he was at it before - killing the Shias whenever he had a bad dream! However, having observed that the Iraqis are rather wayward, maybe Saddam was the only answer to keep them in their place!

I am with you that all these high moral slogan like "Freedom and Democracy" is hogwash and a mere smokescreen. The real reason is strategic. It was to ensure that there was a base in the Middle East so that reaction would be less expensive as also the presence of a US force would be a deterrent to non friendly nation wanting to challenge US hegemony and its pristine position as the sole superpower. You could read Cheney's "Defence Policy Guidance" (DPG) which was prepared by Paul Wolfowitz, who was the then Under Secretary of Defence. That contains the tenets that backdrop US intervention/ invasion in Iraq.

Even if the US withdraws, the autonomous Kurd Region would require US presence it guarantee its existence. Thus, the US is guaranteed its base. It will be ideal to keep pressure to the South, on Iran and Syria as also on the Central Asian Republics and indirectly squeezing Russia at its underbelly. Iraq at peace or at war, suits the US interests admirably, if the DPG is taken as the Bible.

Iraq may anger non Americans, but from the American standpoint, it was a master stroke! Yes, it was brilliant, even if morally incorrect, but then when was there any question of morals in international politics?

As for Americans dying because of political hacks (as you put it), they say that a huge price has to be paid for ensuring Freedom. Please note, the freedom being spoken about is not the Freedom of Iraqis, but the Freedom of Americans to pursue their national interest.

JAD_333

Nabil:

I imagine you as a warm, generous person on an emotional roller coaster ride over Iraq. It's clear we come from different cultures with different ideas about life. There is nothing wrong with that; it's just an observation.

This line illustrates some of what I mean: I quote you: "And, no, there's no room for worrying about voting, government representation , democracyand other noble-sounding quests if you do not even have the basic amenities of life and survival.What's the point?"

I am tempted to ask what you think the insurgency is fighting for. Food? Basic amenities? Survival?

In any case, the US grew out the basic sentiment expressed by the revolutionary patriot Thomas Paine, who said, "give me liberty or give me death."

I am sure you will agree that Saddam accommodated a lot of his people with the 'death' part. Wouldn't it be better to have food and liberty? Both are within the grasp of the Iraqi people and they knew it when they voted for their own government 2 years ago. It's the insurgents and AQ that are preventing it.

You say you are glad I took offense when you compare US aims to Hilter's because, and I quote you, "You cannot use your ideals or 'interests'-however noble they seem to you-on other people."

The simple fact is that our aim is not even remotely the same as Hilter's was. The US objective in toppling Saddam was not primarily to impose our ideals of government on the Iraqi people, but to achieve the strategic goal of a stable Middle East, which we believe is in our interest and the interest of our allies in the region. We were led by Iraqi expatriots to believe the Iraqi people wanted liberty and self-government. So our post invasion plans included that.

The president didn't muse about how nice it would be if the Iraqi people had a democracy, then call in his military chiefs and say, "Hey, boys, let's knock off that butcher, Saddam so we can give the Iraqis a democratic like ours."

No. The conversation was more like this: "It's in our interest to see a stable ME. Where do we start? Iraq? Saddam is a proven threat to Middle East stability; he's unpredictable; he's liable to get into bed with AQ to further their terrorism activities as a way of getting to us. These bomb attacks on our embassies, ships and buildings are getting worse and have to stop. AQ's goal is to unite the ME into a single entity under strict Islamic law. They want to wipe out any vestigages of western influence and to use ME oil reserves to wreak havoc on the US economy. It won't stop even if we kill Bin Ladin. We have to act soon. Make plans for taking out Saddam and creating a stable Iraq."

I am not making any value judgements concerning that line of thought, just relating how it likely went down.

The US made one glaring mistake in Iraq; it didn't send in enough troops. Because of that, it could not prevent looting; it could not secure all the Iraqi ammunintion dumps; it could not round up Saddam's senior people fast enough; it could not secure the border with Iran and Syria; it could not prevent attacks on the oil infrastructure; it could not secure the cities so that electricity and water works could be quickly put back on line; it could not take and hold likely insurgent strongholds; and worse of all it could not snuff out the insurgency in its infancy. To compound the error, the US disbanded the Iraqi army, banned all former Baath party members from serving in the government, and rejected the advice of tribal heads.

Iraq would be a completely different place today if we had sent in 100,000 more troops. It would have functioning representative government; an effective army and police force; electricity; water; a growing economy; better health facilities; plenty of food; and most important, the ME would be more stable. And much more. Can we now add 100,000 troops and reverse the errors? Perhaps, but a majority of the US public is fixated on the errors and demanding that US troops leave. What happens to Iraq if we leave? What do you think?